Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3370-S3373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

INTERNATIONALISM OR ISOLATIONISM--A CHOICE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION OF
AMERICAN LEADERS

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, in the opening words of a major foreign
policy address last evening, President Clinton said that ``we live in a
moment of hope.''
Mr. President, I concur with that sentiment. With the demise of the
cold war, with the nascent friendship between the United States and
Russia, and with the emergence of democratic trends across the globe,
the world is experiencing a realignment in the fundamental relationship
between states. It is, as the President suggests, a time of
extraordinary opportunity for the United States.
I commend President Clinton for his rejection of an inward-looking
course, and endorse his ambitious call to support international
peacekeeping, to reduce the nuclear threat by extending indefinitely
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and implementing other arms
control agreements, and to be an aggressive player in the global
economy. I also ask unanimous consent that the President's speech be
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The present circumstances call to mind the watershed period after
World War II. Then, as now, the United States faced a stark challenge:
whether to assume the mantle of international leadership and become
engaged in the establishment of a new diplomatic order, or whether to
retreat into isolation, comfortably sheltered by two great oceans from
the turbulent world of European balance of power politics.
Due to the courage and foresight of our political leadership--
visionaries such as Harry Truman, George Marshall, Dean Acheson, and
Arthur Vandenberg--America chartered a firm course of internationalism,
guided by the principle of containment of the Soviet Union. Recognizing
the shortsightedness of isolationism, the United States chose not to
repeat the mistakes it made in ignoring the League of Nations, and
became a driving force behind and host of the new United Nations. Our
decisions then, and in the ensuing decades, solidified our role as the
preeminent power in world affairs.
The changes we have witnessed in the past 6 years are the direct
result of the policies we, along with our allies, conceived, refined,
and implemented during the course of the cold war. None of these
changes, however, could have occurred without American leadership and
engagement.
I am therefore troubled by the emerging desire, expressed both in
Congress and in public fora across the Nation, to retreat from our
international commitments and obligations. And nowhere is this
sentiment more dangerous and ill-conceived than in the emerging
obsession with the United Nations.
I am now and have been an ardent supporter of the United
Nations since 1945, when I was part of the International Secretariat
of the San Francisco Conference that drew up the U.N. Charter. In the
years since then, I have tried to help to make the United Nations
become the effective world organization--the very symbol of the
international community of nations--that was envisioned in the charter.

I am not so naive as to profess that the United Nations has always
lived up to its potential. The United States-Soviet rivalry tended at
times to hamstring the Security Council, and U.N. history occasionally
has been interspersed with examples of waste and ineffectiveness. But
for every example of failure, I can think of numerous countervailing
examples of success--Cambodia, El Salvador, Namibia, and countless
others. And now that we are entering a new era of cooperation with
Russia, the Security Council harbors even greater promise for becoming
a first-rate arbiter of international conflict and discord. U.N.
peacekeeping has helped to serve American interests in the Middle East,
in Africa, in Latin America, and in Asia. And I know that there will be
situations in the future where we will rely on the U.N. peacekeepers to
support our foreign policy aims.
Now that we no longer are forced to dedicate such a sizable
proportion of our resources to the containment of Russia, we can see
before us an entire new range of opportunity for international
cooperation and prosperity. But the growth industries and salient
political issues of the future--be they in telecommunications, the
exchange of information, the flow of capital, the sound use of our
environmental resources, or the prevention of the proliferation of
conventional and unconventional arms--are heading in a direction that
transcends national boundaries. If the United States is to keep pace,
it cannot afford to slide back into inward-looking detachment.
In his address, the President set out a challenging and crucially
important arms control agenda. I was quite pleased to note the high
priority he attaches to achieving the indefinite extension of the Non-
Proliferation Treaty at the conference of the parties beginning next
month. The President has decided to underscore the importance he
attaches to the preservation of international barriers to nuclear
proliferation by asking Vice President Gore to lead our delegation. The
Vice President will be ably supported by Ambassador Thomas Graham, Jr.,
and other experts from the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
The President also reaffirmed his commitment to the quick completion
of a complete ban on nuclear testing. Substantial progress has been
made in the negotiations. With a dedicated effort, the remaining
stumbling blocks can be overcome.
I was pleased also that the President attaches high priority to the
ratification of the START II Treaty. The START I and START II effort is
truly bipartisan, spanning three administrations. Under the leadership
of Senator Helms and Senator Lugar, the Committee on Foreign Relations
is in the
process of wrapping up hearings started in the last Congress under my
chairmanship.

In addition to these priorities, the President told his audience:

There are other critical tasks we also face if we want to
make every American more secure, including winning Senate
ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, negotiating
legally binding measures to strengthen the Biological and
Toxin Weapons Convention, clarifying the ABM Treaty so as to
secure its viability while permitting highly effective
defenses against theater missile attacks, continuing to
support regional arms control efforts in the Middle East and
elsewhere, and pushing for the ratification of conventional
weapons which, among other things, would help us to reduce
the suffering caused by the tens of millions of antipersonnel
mines. * * *

The President understands that this agenda is both far-reaching and
imperative. He said:

Mr. President, it is very important to understand that many aspects
of arms control and nonproliferation are truly bipartisan. To be sure,
Senators have and have had disagreements. Nonetheless, working together
in a bipartisan fashion, we have moved steadily forward. During my
chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations, we were able to
craft bipartisan bills, with the strong involvement of Senator Glenn
and other Members, imposing effective sanctions against both nations
and individuals engaged in reprehensible activities involving chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapons-related activities.
[[Page S3371]] It is indicative of the bipartisan nature of our arms
control efforts that every treaty the committee and the Senate approved
while I was privileged to be chairman won overwhelming support in the
end. We were careful in every instance to resolve all legitimate
concerns along the way to committee and floor consideration, and there
was never a question with any of the arms control treaties voted out--
including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the
Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty,
the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, and the START II Treaty--that
the approval would be well beyond the required two-thirds support.
Mr. President, I am gratified that President Clinton has embraced an
ambitious agenda that will merit continued bipartisan support. He will
thus be able to bring to fruition major initiatives of the Bush
administration, as well as his own. The end result will assuredly be a
safer, more stable world.
It is important to understand that these efforts represent a
continuum in arms control that covers much of the post-World War II
period. Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy initiated the first efforts
to curb nuclear testing, and each succeeding administration has built
on the successes of its predecessors.
Mr. President, I wish that I could say that the major challenges of
arms control and nonproliferation are behind us. Despite the many
successes, the challenges ahead are formidable. I am extremely pleased
that the President is able and willing to face these challenges. I
trust that the Congress will continue a truly bipartisan effort to
control, reduce, and even eliminate weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. President, we stand at the cross-roads of history. The tenor of
current political discourse--focused as it is on disengagement,
withdrawal, and neoisolationism--suggests we are heading toward a
colossal error in judgment. Those who seek to retreat into a Fortress
America offer no constructive suggestion for filling the vacuum to be
left by America's withdrawal. We would lose our political and moral
authority, our ability to exercise influence in matters vital to our
interests, and do grave harm to our standing as one of the greatest
powers in history.
In his speech last night, President Clinton mentioned one of the most
distinguished members ever to have served in this body--Arthur
Vandenberg--who advanced the principle that politics should stop at the
waters edge. But many of our interests, Mr. President, only begin
there. I stand behind President Clinton's conviction that America can
prosper in the next century only through international engagement and
the assertion of leadership.
There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

[From the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Mar. 1, 1995]

Remarks by the President to the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom
Policy Conference

The President. To Tricia and John Taylor, and all the
people from the Nixon Center; our distinguished guests from
Germany and from Russia; of course, to Henry Kissinger--I was
thinking when he said we both spoke with accents, judging
from the results of the last election, his native country is
still claiming him more than mine is claiming me. (Laughter.)
But I'm a big one for reconciliation. (Laughter.) And there's
plenty of time to achieve it.
I am honored to be here tonight. Just a month before he
passed away, President Nixon wrote me the last letter I
received from him about his last trip to Russia. I told some
people at the time that it was the best piece of foreign
policy writing I had received, which angered my staff but
happened to be the truth. (Laughter.) And as with all of our
correspondence and conversations, I was struck by the rigor
of his analysis, the energy of his convictions, and the
wisdom of the practical suggestions that he made to me.
But more than the specifics of the letter, which basically
argued for the imperative of the United States continuing to
support political and economic reform in Russia, I was moved
by the letter's larger message--a message that ran throughout
Richard Nixon's entire public life and all of his prolific
writings. President Nixon believed deeply that the United
States simply could not be strong at home unless we were
strong and prepared to lead abroad.
And that made a big impression on me. When I was running
for President in 1992, even though there was this little
sticker up on the wall of my campaign headquarters that said,
``It's the economy, stupid,'' I always said in every speech
that we had to have two objectives. We had to restore the
American Dream for all of our people, but we also had to make
sure that we move into
the next century still the strongest nation in the world,
and the world's greatest force for peace and freedom and
democracy.
Tonight I want to talk about the vital tradition of
American leadership and our responsibilities, those which
Henry Kissinger mentioned and those which President Nixon
recognized so well. Our mission especially I want to
discuss--to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons.
Today if we are going to be strong at home and lead abroad,
we have to overcome what we all recognize I think is a
dangerous and growing temptation here in our own land to
focus solely on the problems we face here in America. I want
to focus on the problems we face here in America. I've tried
to do it for the last two years. I look forward to working
with this new Republican-led Congress in the next two. But
not solely.
There is a struggle now going on between those of us who
want to carry on the tradition of American leadership and
those who would advocate a new form of American isolationism.
A struggle which cuts curiously across both party and
ideological lines. If we're going to continue to improve the
security and prosperity of all our people, then the tradition
of American leadership must prevail.
We live in a moment of hope. We all know that. The
implosion of communism and the explosion of the global
economy have brought new freedoms to countries on every
continent. Free markets are on the rise. Democracy is
ascendant. The slogan says, ``after victory.'' Today, more
than ever before, people across the globe do have the
opportunity to reach their God-given potential. And because
they do, Americans have new opportunities to reach theirs as
well.
At the same time, the post-Cold War world has revealed a
whole web of problems that defy quick or painless solutions--
aggression of rogue states, transnational threats like
overpopulation and environmental degradation, terrible ethnic
conflicts and economic dislocation. But at the heart of all
these complex challenges, I believe, lies an age-old battle--
for power over human lives. The battle between the forces of
freedom and tyranny, tolerance and repression, hope and fear.
The same idea that was under attack by fascism and then by
communism remains under attack today in different ways all
across the world--the idea of the open society of free
people.
American leadership is necessary for the tide of history to
keep running our way, and for our children to have the future
they deserve. Yet, there are some who would choose escapism
over engagement. The new isolationists oppose our efforts to
expand free trade through GATT or NAFTA through APEC and the
Summit of the Americas. They reject our conviction that
democracy must be nurtured with investment and support, a
conviction that we are acting on from the former Soviet Union
to South Africa. And some of them, being hypocritical, saying
that we must trumpet the rhetoric of American strength; and
then at the same time, they argue against the resources we
need to bring stability to the Persian Gulf or to restore
democracy to Haiti, or to control the spread of drugs and
organized crime around the world, or even to meet our most
elemental obligations to the United Nations and its
peacekeeping work.
The new isolationists both on the left and the right would
radically revise the fundamentals of our foreign policy that
have earned bipartisan support since the end of World War II.
They would eliminate any meaningful role for the United
Nations which has achieved, for all of its problems, real
progress around the world, from the Middle East to Africa.
They would deny resources to our peacekeepers and even to our
troops, and, instead, squander them on Star Wars. And they
would refuse aid to the fledgling democracies and to all
those fighting poverty and environmental problems that can
literally destroy hopes for a more democratic, more
prosperous, more safe world.
The new isolationists are wrong. They would have us face
the future alone. Their approach would weaken this country,
and generated build into a tidal wave. (Applause.)
If we withdraw from the world today, mark my words, we'll
have to contend with the consequences of our neglect tomorrow
and tomorrow and tomorrow. This is a moment of decision for
all of us without regard to our party, our background or our
accent. This is a moment of decision.
The extraordinary trend toward democracy and free markets
is not inevitable. And as we have seen recently, it will not
proceed easily in an even, uninterrupted course. This is hard
work. And at the very time when more and more countries than
ever before are working to establish or shore up their own
freedom in their fragile democracies, they look to us for
support. At this time, the new isolationists must not be
allowed to pull America out of the game after just a few
hours of debate because there is a modest price attached to
our leadership. (Applause.)
We know now, as President Nixon recognized, that there must
also be limits to
[[Page S3372]] America's involvement in the world's
problems--limits imposed by clear-headed evaluation of our
fundamental interests. We cannot be the world's policeman; we
cannot become involved in every problem we really care about.
But the choice we make must be rooted in the conviction that
America cannot walk away from its interests or its
responsibilities.
That's why, from our first day in office, this
administration has chosen to reach out, not retreat. From our
efforts to open markets for America to support democracy
around the world, to reduce the threat posed by devastating
weapons and terrorists, to maintaining the most effective
fighting force in the world, we have worked to seize the
opportunities and meet the obligations of this moment.
None of this could have happened without a coalition of
realists--people in both Houses of Congress and, importantly,
people from both parties; people from coast to coast in our
towns and cities and communities who know that the wealth and
well-being of the United States depends upon our leadership
abroad. Even the early leaders of our republic who went to
great pains to avoid involvement in great power conflicts
recognize not only the potential benefits, but the absolute
necessity of engaging with the world.
Before Abraham Lincoln was elected President, our farmers
were selling their crops overseas, we had dispatched the
trade mission all the way to Japan trying to open new
markets--some problems don't go away--(laughter)--and our
Navy had already sailed every ocean. By the dawn of this
century, our growing political and economic power already
imposed a special duty on America to lead; a duty that was
crystallized in our involvement in World War I. But after
that war, we and the other great powers abandoned our
responsibilities and the forces of tyranny and hatred filled
the vacuum, as is well-known.
After the second world war, our wise leaders did not repeat
that mistake. With the dawn of the Nuclear Age and the Cold
War, and with the economies of Europe and Japan in shambles,
President Truman persuaded an uncertain and weary nation,
yearning to shift its energies from the front lines to the
home front, to lead the world again.
A remarkable generation of Americans created and sustained
alliances and institutions--the Marshall Plan, NATO, the
United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF--the things that
brought half a century of security and prosperity to America,
to Europe, to Japan and to other countries all around the
world. Those efforts and the special resolve and military
strength of our own nation held tyranny in check until the
power of democracy, the failures of communism, and the heroic
determination of people to be free, consigned the Cold War to
history.
Those successes would not have been possible without a
strong, bipartisan commitment to American's leadership.
Senator Arthur Vandenburg's call to unite our official
voice at the water's edge joined Republicans to Truman's
doctrine. His impact was all the more powerful for his own
past as an isolationist. But as Vandenburg himself said,
Pearl Harbor ended isolationism for any realist.
Today, it is Vandenburg's spirit that should drive our
foreign policy and our politics. The practical determination
of Senators Nunn and Lugar to help Russia reduce its nuclear
arsenal safely and securely; the support from Speaker
Gingrich and Leader Gephardt, from Chairman Livingston and
Representative Obey for aid to Russia and the newly-
independent states; the work of Senators Hatfield, Leahy and
McConnell, and Chairman Gilman, and Representative Hamilton
for peace in the Middle East; the efforts of Senator Warner
to restructure our intelligence--all these provide strong
evidence of the continuing benefits and vitality of
leadership with bipartisanship.
If we continue to lead abroad and work together at home, we
can take advantage of these turbulent times. But if we
retreat, we risk squandering all these opportunity and
abandoning our obligations which others have entrusted to us
and paid a very dear price to bring to us in this moment in
history.
I know that the choice to go forward in a lot of these
areas is not easy in democracies at this time. Many of the
decisions that America's leaders have to make are not popular
when they're made. But imagine the alternative. Imagine, for
example, the tariffs and barriers that would still cripple
the world trading system for years into the future if
internationalists coming together across party lines had not
passed GATT and NAFTA. Imagine what the Persian Gulf region
would look like today if the United States had not stepped up
with its allies to stop Iraqi aggression. Imagine the ongoing
reign of terror and the flood of refugees at our borders had
we not helped to give democracy a second chance in Haiti.
Imagine the chaos that might have ensued if we had not moved
to help stabilize Mexico's economy. In each case, there was
substantial and sometimes overwhelming majority opinion
against what needed to be done at the moment. But because we
did it, the world has a better chance at peace and freedom.
(Applause.)
But above all now, I ask you to imagine the dangers that
our children and grandchildren, even after the Cold War is
over, still can face if we do not do everything we can to
reduce the threat of nuclear arms, to curb the terrible
chemical and biological weapons spreading around the world,
to counter the terrorists and criminals who would put these
weapons into the service of evil.
As Arthur Vandenburg asked at the dawn of the Nuclear Age,
after a German V-1 attack had left London in flames and its
people in fear, ``How can there be isolation when men can
devise weapons like that?''
President Nixon understood the wisdom of those words. His
life spanned an era of stunning increases in humankind's
destructive capacity, from the biplane to ballistic missiles,
from mustard gas to mushroom clouds. He knew that the Atomic
Age could never be won, but could be lost. On any list of his
foreign policy accomplishments, the giant steps he took
toward reducing the nuclear threat must stand among his
greatest achievement. As President, I have acted on that same
imperative.
Over the past two years, the United States has made real
progress in lifting the threat of nuclear weapons. Now, in
1995, we face a year of particular decision in this era--a
year in which the United States will pursue the most
ambitious agenda to dismantle and fight the spread of weapons
of mass destruction since the atom was split.
We know that ours is an enormously complex and difficult
challenge. There is no single policy, no silver bullet, that
will prevent or reverse the spread of weapons of mass
destruction. But we have no more important task. Arms control
makes us not only safer, it makes us stronger. It is a source
of strength. It is one of the most effective insurance
policies we can write for the future of our children.
Our administration has focused on two distinct, but closely
connected areas--decreasing and dismantling existing weapons,
and preventing nations or groups from acquiring weapons of
mass destruction, and the means to deliver them. We've made
progress on both fronts.
As the result of an agreement President Yeltsin and I
reached, for the first time in a generation Russian missiles
are not pointed at our cities or our citizens. We've greatly
reduced the lingering fear of an accidental nuclear launch.
We put into force the START I Treaty with Russia that will
eliminate from both our countries delivery systems that carry
more than 9,000 nuclear warheads--each with the capacity to
incinerate a city the size of Atlanta.
START I, negotiated by two Republican administrations and
put into force by this Democratic administration, is the
first treaty that requires the nuclear powers actually to
reduce their strategic arsenal. Both our countries are
dismantling the weapons as fast as we can. And thanks to a
far-reaching verification system, including on-site
inspections which began in Russia and the United States
today, each of us knows exactly what the other is doing.
(Applause.)
And, again, through the far-sighted program devised by
Senators Nunn and Lugar, we are helping Russia and the other
newly-independent states to eliminate nuclear forces in
transport, safeguard and destroy nuclear weapons and
materiel.
Ironically, some of the changes that have allowed us to
reduce the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons have made our
nonproliferation efforts harder. The breakup of the Soviet
Union left nuclear materials dispersed throughout the newly-
independent states. The potential for theft of nuclear
materials, therefore, increased. We face the prospect of
organized criminals entering the nuclear smuggling business.
Add to this the volatile mix, the fact that a lump of
plutonium the size of a soda can is enough to build a bomb,
and the urgency of the effort to stop the spread of nuclear
materials should be clear to all of us.
That's why from our first day in office we have launched an
aggressive, coordinated campaign against international
terrorism and nuclear smuggling. We are cooperating closely
with our allies, working with Russia and the other newly-
independent states, improving security at nuclear facilities,
and strengthening multilateral export controls.
One striking example of our success is Operation Sapphire,
the airlift of nearly 600 kilograms of highly-enriched
uranium--enough to make dozens of bombs from Kazakhstan to
the United States for disposal. We've also secured agreements
with Russia to reduce the uranium and plutonium available for
nuclear weapons, and we're seeking a global treaty banning
the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.
Our patient, determined diplomacy also succeeded in
convincing Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to sign the Non-
Proliferation Treaty and give up the nuclear weapons left on
their territory when the Soviet Union dissolved. One of our
administration's top priorities was to assure that these new
countries would become non-nuclear nations, and now we are
also achieving that goal. (Applause.)
Because of these efforts, four potential suppliers of
ballistic missiles--Russia, Ukraine, China and South Africa--
have been agreed to control the transfer of these missiles
and related technology, pulling back from the nuclear
precipice has allowed us to cut United States defense
expenditures for strategic weapons by almost two-thirds, a
savings of about $20 billion a year, savings which can be
shifted to vital needs such as boosting the readiness of our
Armed Forces, reducing the deficit, putting more police on
our own streets. By spending millions to keep or take weapons
out of the hands of our potential adversaries, we are saving
billions in arms costs and putting it to better use.

[[Page S3373]]

Now, in this year of decision, our ambition for the future
must be even more ambitious. If our people are to know real
lasting security, we have to redouble our arms control,
nonproliferation and antiterrorism efforts. We have to do
everything we can to avoid living with the 21st century
version of fallout shelters and duck-and-cover exercises to
prevent another World Trade Center tragedy.
In just four days we mark the 25th anniversary of the Non-
Proliferation Treaty. Nothing is more important to prevent
the spread of nuclear weapons than extending the treaty
indefinitely and unconditionally. And that's why I've asked
the Vice President to lead our delegation to the NPT
conference this April and to work as hard as we can to make
sure we succeed in getting that indefinite extension.
The NPT is the principal reason why scores of nations do
not now possess nuclear weapons; why the doomsayers were
wrong. One hundred and seventy-two nations have made NPT the
most widely subscribed arms limitation treaty in history for
one overriding reason--it's in their self-interest to do so.
Non-nuclear weapon states that sign on to the treaty pledge
never to acquire them. Nuclear weapons states vow not to help
others obtain nuclear weapons, to facilitate the peaceful
uses of atomic energy and to pursue nuclear arms control and
disarmament--commitments I strongly reaffirm, along with our
determination to attain universal membership in the treaty.
Failure to extend NPT indefinitely could open the door to a
world of nuclear trouble. Pariah nations with rigid
ideologies and expansionist ambitions would have an easier
time acquiring terrible weapons, and countries that have
chosen to forego the nuclear option would then rethink their
position; they would certainly be tempted to reconsider that
decision.
To further demonstrate our commitment to the goals of the
treaty, today I have ordered that 200 tons of fissile
material, enough for thousands of nuclear weapons, be
permanently withdrawn from the United States nuclear
stockpile. (Applause.) Two hundred tons of fissile material
that will never again be used to build a nuclear weapon.
A second key goal of ours is ratifying START II. Once in
effect, that treaty will eliminate delivery systems from
Russian and American arsenals that carry more than 5,000
weapons. The major reductions under START I, together with
START II, will enable us to reduce by two-thirds the number
of strategic warheads deployed at the height of the Cold War.
At my urging, the Senate has already begun hearings on START
II, and I am encouraged by the interest of the senators from
both parties in seeking quick action. I commend the Senate
for the action taken
so far, and I urge again the approval of the treaty as soon
as possible.
President Yeltsin and I have already instructed our experts
to begin considering the possibility after START II is
ratified of additional reductions and limitations on
remaining nuclear forces. We have a chance to further lift
the nuclear cloud, and we dare not miss it.
To stop the development of new generations of nuclear
weapons, we must also quickly complete negotiations on a
comprehensive test ban treaty. Last month I extended a
nuclear testing moratorium that I put into effect when I took
office. And we revised our negotiating position to speed the
conclusion of the treaty while reaffirming our determination
to maintain a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile.
We will also continue to work with our allies to fully
implement the agreement we reached with North Korea, first to
freeze, then do dismantle its nuclear program, all under
international monitoring. The critics of this agreement, I
believe, are wrong. The deal does stop North Korea's nuclear
program, and it does commit Pyongyang to roll it back in the
years to come.
I have not heard another alternative proposal that isn't
either unworkable or foolhardy, or one that our allies in the
Republic of Korea and Japan, the nation's most directly
affected, would fail to support.
If North Korea fulfills its commitment, the Korean
Peninsula and the entire world will clearly be less
threatened and more secure. The NPT, START II, the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the North Korean Agreement,
they top our agenda for the year ahead. [There are other
critical tasks we also face if we want to make every American
more secure, including winning Senate ratification of the
Chemical Weapons Convention, negotiating legally binding
measures to strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons
Convention, clarifying the ABM Treaty so as to secure its
viability while permitting highly effective defenses against
theater missile attacks, continuing to support regional arms
control efforts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and pushing
for the ratification of conventional weapons which, among
other things, would help us to reduce the suffering caused by
the tens of millions of anti-personnel mines which are
plaguing millions of people all across this world.]
(Applause.)
My friends, this is a full and challenging agenda. There
are many obstacles ahead. We cannot achieve it if we give
into a new isolationism. But I believe we can do no less than
make every effort to complete it.
Tonight, let us remember what President Nixon told the
joint session of Congress when he returned from his historic
trip to Moscow in 1972. He said, ``We have begun to check the
wasteful and dangerous spiral of nuclear arms. Let us seize
the moment so that our children and the world's children can
live free of the fears and free of the hatreds that have been
the lot of mankind through the centuries.''
Now it is within our power to realize the dream that
Richard Nixon described over 20 years ago. We cannot let
history record that our generation of Americans refused to
rise to this challenge, that we withdrew from the world and
abandoned our responsibilities when we knew better than to do
it, that we lacked the energy, the vision and the will to
carry this struggle forward--the age-old struggle between
hope and fear.
So let us find inspiration in the great tradition of Harry
Truman and Arthur Vandenburg--a tradition that builds bridges
of cooperation, not walls of isolation; that opens the arms
of Americans to change instead of throwing up our hands in
despair; that casts aside partisanship and brings together
Republicans and Democrats for the good of the American people
and the world. That is the tradition that made the most of
this land, won the great battles of this century against
tyranny and secured our freedom and our prosperity.
Above all, let's not forget that these efforts begin and
end with the American people. Every time we reduce the threat
that has hung over our heads since the dawn of the Nuclear
Age, we help to ensure that from the far stretches of the
Aleutians to the tip of the Florida Keys, the American people
are more secure. That is our most serious task and our most
solemn obligation.
The challenge of this moment is matched only by its
possibility. So let us do our duty.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)

____________________